The Madison Bumgarner Thread: Burnes for Bumgarner [and other trade ideas]: would you do it?

[Jopal78]

Admittedly, it would be selling low on Burnes but he's not going to pitch in the rotation for Milwaukee this year barring a collapse by the team. The homerun ball makes it difficult to put him in as a late inning reliever in close games. The Giants are in desperate need of a rebuild and play in a pitcher's park, more probably true than not they would have keen interest in a young arm with upside like Burnes.

 

For the Brewers, you get a legitimate top of the rotation arm. You strengthen the entire pitching staff by slotting everyone back one step. Woodruff becomes a #2, Davies a #3 etc. Odd man out is the new swing man in the pen. Bumgarner is one of this generations best playoff pitchers and could be an absolute killer in the post season.

[pacopete4]

[monkeyman343434]

Besides the fact Milwaukee is on Bumgarner's no trade list, no thank you to that trade

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Besides the fact Milwaukee is on Bumgarner's no trade list, no thank you to that trade

 

It's been pretty well noted that the fact that the Brewers are on MadBum's no-trade list has nothing to do with not wanting to play for the Brewers. Every team on his list is a playoff contender. It was a leverage move on his part to give him some control over which contender he goes to.

[KeithStone53151]

We probably should also throw in Yelich with Burnes to make sure the Giants go for it...

[adambr2]

No. Burnes has far too much upside to trade for a rental and Bumgarner isn't a top of the rotation pitched anymore. He'd be going from an extreme pitcher friendly park to an extreme hitter friendly park, so that transition may also not go well.

 

No interest in MadBum at that price. I personally don't like the guy, but even separating that from him professionally, no interest at that price.

[Brew crew 92]

Ha

[HiAndTight]

Admittedly, it would be selling low on Burnes but he's not going to pitch in the rotation for Milwaukee this year barring a collapse by the team. The homerun ball makes it difficult to put him in as a late inning reliever in close games. The Giants are in desperate need of a rebuild and play in a pitcher's park, more probably true than not they would have keen interest in a young arm with upside like Burnes.

 

For the Brewers, you get a legitimate top of the rotation arm. You strengthen the entire pitching staff by slotting everyone back one step. Woodruff becomes a #2, Davies a #3 etc. Odd man out is the new swing man in the pen. Bumgarner is one of this generations best playoff pitchers and could be an absolute killer in the post season.

 

 

Absolutely not. I'll respect the idea, it makes a lot of sense and it sets us up very well this year, but despite his struggles this year, I think he's going to be as good as, if not better than Woody has been this year.

 

I don't want to pass up on 5 years of that. I really like MadBum, but I definitely do not want to give up Burnes. We're finally on the cusp of putting together a rotation of really talented, homegrown pitchers.

 

 

I get the other side, we don't know how many times we'll get to this point where we're competitive, we've gotta take risks, MadBum has been a dominant playoff pitcher.

[HiAndTight]

 

 

I'm actually surprised there aren't more people on board with this.

 

I just read the first post. I'm against it, but I thought others would be for trading a young, relatively unproven pitcher for arguably the most proven post-season pitcher of this generation.

 

I don't like it, but I don't think it's that outrageous.

 

 

He is having a good season and pitching on a contender could very well give him a "Verlander-esque" shot in the arm. His K/BB ratio are up and his peripherals in general look pretty good.

[pacopete4]

 

 

I'm actually surprised there aren't more people on board with this.

 

I just read the first post. I'm against it, but I thought others would be for trading a young, relatively unproven pitcher for arguably the most proven post-season pitcher of this generation.

 

I don't like it, but I don't think it's that outrageous.

 

 

He is having a good season and pitching on a contender could very well give him a "Verlander-esque" shot in the arm. His K/BB ratio are up and his peripherals in general look pretty good.

 

These are the types of moves that have the Brewers in a new city in 2030.

[DHonks]

I'd trade Barnes, Suppak, and a million other arms. But I wouldn't touch Burnes. Do you think the Bbacks regretted dealing Scherzer for Edwin Jackson rather than giving the kid time to grow and mature?

[HiAndTight]

 

 

I'm actually surprised there aren't more people on board with this.

 

I just read the first post. I'm against it, but I thought others would be for trading a young, relatively unproven pitcher for arguably the most proven post-season pitcher of this generation.

 

I don't like it, but I don't think it's that outrageous.

 

 

He is having a good season and pitching on a contender could very well give him a "Verlander-esque" shot in the arm. His K/BB ratio are up and his peripherals in general look pretty good.

 

These are the types of moves that have the Brewers in a new city in 2030.

 

 

Well, calling that hyperbole would be a bit of an uderstatement.

[jerichoholicninja]

No, and a thousand other words that also mean no.

[markedman5]

Lol

[HiAndTight]

Not surprised people are against this move, but I'm surprised there is this strong of a consensus.

 

Makes me curious who people would be willing to trade Burners for. Bauer? Would it take more like Verlander? I'd assume Cole wouldn't be considered since he's also set to be a FA.

 

So a TOR type pitcher with 2 or 3 years of team control?

[nate82]

Not surprised people are against this move, but I'm surprised there is this strong of a consensus.

 

Makes me curious who people would be willing to trade Burners for. Bauer? Would it take more like Verlander? I'd assume Cole wouldn't be considered since he's also set to be a FA.

 

So a TOR type pitcher with 2 or 3 years of team control?

 

I would trade for Burnes for the following:

 

Scherzer, Strasburg, Syndergaard, or deGrom

 

Does Burnes have the value to bring in any of these pitchers probably not right now.

 

I would prefer someone who has at least 2-4 years of team control. The only way I would want anyone for a half of a season is if they would be willing to sign an extension at a team friendly price. I don't want to go over $20m a season for anyone over the age of 30 if they don't already have a contract.

 

It could get interesting this off season if Strasburg opts out. If Strasburg opts out the Nationals will still be paying him from '20-'22 at $10m each year ouch.

[JosephC]

Not surprised people are against this move, but I'm surprised there is this strong of a consensus.

 

Makes me curious who people would be willing to trade Burners for. Bauer? Would it take more like Verlander? I'd assume Cole wouldn't be considered since he's also set to be a FA.

 

So a TOR type pitcher with 2 or 3 years of team control?

 

I had typed in a whole bunch of stuff this morning with ERA, xFIP, road ERA numbers, etc and when submitting it got the internal server error and it was all lost. Some highlights were that Bumgarner's current ERA is higher than his xFIP which would be the first time that's happened since 2011. His road ERA this year is 3.73 and from 2016-2018 was 3.79. This year his xFIP has been a solid 3.66 but last year it was 4.32 and the previous year it was 4.07. Many consider Oracle (formerly AT&T) Park to be the most favorable environment for left handed pitchers in MLB. If you take his numbers from the last few year and put him as pitching half his games in Miller Park, when it comes to run prevention it's most likely he is a 3.80-4.20 ERA pitcher. The Giants put him on the block this off-season and he didn't stay there for long, likely because San Fran was asking for the moon and other interested clubs probably were all looking at the same numbers that I'm looking at. I think the vast majority of teams just don't see him as being anywhere near an ace level moving forward and value him as a solid pitcher but no longer a special pitcher. I did the brief number crunch on him this off-season (should have no problem locating the thread on page 2 of this forum), and taking the most optimistic numbers determined that Bumgarner would in no way be worth a top 100 hitting prospect but may be worth a back-end top 100 pitcher but, again, that was taking the most optimistic number and that was the off-season so team trading for him now would have already lost roughly 1/3 of the contribution.

 

Even with Burnes being terrible so far this season, a straight up deal for Bumgarner would make no sense for Milwaukee because there is still too much potential that exists with Burnes.

[TJseven7]

Burnes seems like he's 2 years away and still there's no chance I'd do this. The pitch profile is that of a very good starter. I'm not interested in dealing those.

[Outlander]

I wouldn't but it probably takes Burnes to get it done. If Stearns wants a clear upgrade at a certain position he may very well have to part with Burnes or watch from the sidelines as the rest of the farm system isn't all that appealing. Their most appealing prospects are young guys in A ball and a pitcher coming off multiple Tommy John surgeries.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I wouldn't but it probably takes Burnes to get it done. If Stearns wants a clear upgrade at a certain position he may very well have to part with Burnes or watch from the sidelines as the rest of the farm system isn't all that appealing. Their most appealing prospects are young guys in A ball and a pitcher coming off multiple Tommy John surgeries.

 

Take a look at the hauls teams have typically gotten back for rentals the last few years. Other than the stupid deal the Cubs did for Chapman, the returns haven't been astronomical. There is no doubt in my mind at least that if the Brewers feel they need to make an upgrade, they have the currency to get it done without dealing guys like Burnes and Hiura.

[Roderick]

Take a look at the hauls teams have typically gotten back for rentals the last few years. Other than the stupid deal the Cubs did for Chapman, the returns haven't been astronomical.

 

Usually, but I bet the Giants FO think they really have to show something for this trade to the "regular" fan. I wouldn't be surprised if the Giants pay most of the MadBum contract or package him with some other prospect(s) to get that much better a prospect(s) back. This trade will be under the microscope, so they will probably want somebody close to major league ready.

[pacopete4]

The Giants missed their window to capitalize on moving MadBum. Now they will have to settle for what they get or double down on their mistakes and sign him. I hope it's the latter because that would be downright hilarious.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Take a look at the hauls teams have typically gotten back for rentals the last few years. Other than the stupid deal the Cubs did for Chapman, the returns haven't been astronomical.

 

Usually, but I bet the Giants FO think they really have to show something for this trade to the "regular" fan. I wouldn't be surprised if the Giants pay most of the MadBum contract or package him with some other prospect(s) to get that much better a prospect(s) back. This trade will be under the microscope, so they will probably want somebody close to major league ready.

 

Perhaps. The Tigers traded Verlander to the Astros for three very young, far off prospects in 2017 . Granted all three were considered very good prospects, but they were very young. Franklin Perez was the crown jewel of that deal, and after scuffling pretty much all of last year, he is pitching well at the A+ level as a 21-year-old. Daz Cameron is off to a middling start in AAA this year as a 22 year old. Jake Rogers was the oldest of the three at 22 when dealt, and he started this season at AA as a 24 year old, and was moved up to AAA pretty quickly. He's playing well. But Verlander, who had just as much of a history as MadBum, and had 2 1/2 seasons of control to boot, was traded for three prospects who, while exciting, were so far away from being major leaguers that it is 1 1/2 seasons later and none have had any ML time yet.

 

Every team is going to want to trade their players for ML-ready studs, but those type of prospects are rarely dealt. Most of the time it is high upside these teams are getting back. The Brewers don't have a ton of prospects that are close to ML ready, but they do have a fair number of high upside guys that the lower levels that could theoretically be used as trade currency.

[JosephC]

Bumgarner has been such a big part of that franchise that I don't necessarily think it would be that bad of a deal for the Giants to re-sign him as long at the length of deal and money are reasonable. Oracle Park is a perfect fit for him, and it's not out of line to think that he could continue to be a 2.5 WAR pitcher in that environment. This season he's sitting at 9 K/9 and 1.7 BB/9, so it's not like his skills have eroded to the point where he can't be a solid middle-of-the-rotation pitcher over the next 3-4 years. I don't think a 3 year, 62 million dollar deal with an option year tacked on (4 million buyout) would be unreasonable at all. One has to remember, this is a team that has comfortably operated at 180 million in payroll. He could get hurt and it could turn out to be a disaster but the same can be said about any pitcher. My guess is, if he'd disappoint, it would be at the level that Braun has disappointed over the length of his last extension. Maybe a disappointment, but there has been enough good mixed in there where it certainly does not rate as a disaster.

 

My biggest concerns with Bumgarner is what happens if he is no longer pitching 1/2 of his games at Oracle Park.

[Jopal78]

Last year, the Cubs acquired Cole Hamels from Texas for Eddie Butler (since released), and two lower level minor league players. The return wasn't much for Texas however, the Cubs took on 14 million dollars in salary last year, plus another 20 million this year after picking up the club option.

 

In 2017, the Dodgers acquired rental starter Yu Darvish. The Dodgers sent Willie Calhoun (#60 prospect in MLB) plus two other minor league players.

 

Also in 2017, the Astros acquired Justin Verlander from Detroit for Franklin Perez (#41 prospect in MLB) and two other minor league players.

 

In 2015 when David Price was traded from Detroit to Toronto as a rental starter. Toronto sent their #1 prospect Daniel Norris, their #16 prospect Jairo Labourt and Matthew Boyd to Detroit.

 

Any sort of front line starter is going to cost either the Clubs top prospect or a legitimate top 100 prospect in MLB, plus other pieces.

 

No doubt, giving away Burnes would hurt, then again he is the most marketable asset after Keston Hiura. The rest of the Milwaukee prospects are either years away or have question marks due to injuries/inconsistent play and likely won't make up the best offer on the table for Bumgarner.

 

The reason I would do it is simple: winning in baseball is really hard. Who would have thought that the Weeks, Fielder, Braun, Hart, Hardy era would yield just two playoff appearances and one playoff series win? In fact those clubs from 2007-2011 went 426-384 for a winning pct of .525.

 

At the break in 2014 the Brewers had 53 wins and a winning percentage of .552. With 66 games remaining following the break, had they played 3 games better than .500 baseball the rest of the way, they would have hosted the wild card game. Had they played four games better than .500 they would have tied for the division. Their reinforcements at the deadline that year for those who may not recall were Jonathon Broxton and Gerardo Parra. That team of course collapsed with the pitching staff allowing 5 or more runs in 18 of those 66 games after the break and the Brewers lost all 18 of those games. As everyone knows, the team assumed they were a contender in 2015, flopped badly with the manager and GM losing their jobs in the process.

 

Accordingly, in a division where there isn't a clear cut favorite, and in a league where a couple games will decide who is in the post season and who isn't you have to make hard decisions. The right decision in this case would be to gamble that Bumgarner makes the team's chances at the playoffs that much better, and live with the chance that Burnes will learn how to pitch effectively with his stuff.